Re: Interessting problem

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr
Cc: pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Interessting problem
Date: 2003-05-20 15:07:17
Message-ID: 20030520150716.GM40542@flake.decibel.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 01:59:21PM +0200, ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr wrote:
> The fact that the postgres user owns all the backend makes it impossible
> for ordinary users to kill their backend or have I missed something?

FWIW, DB2 gives the option of a function being 'fenced' or 'un-fenced'.
Un-fenced functions run in the database process, so if they do something
bad they can cause serious data corruption. Fenced functions are run in
a separate process, and using a separate uid. AFAIK, communication
between the two is done using IPC. The downside to fenced functions is
that they are slower, due to fork and IPC overhead (I don't remember if
DB2 will cache fence processes and re-use them or not).
--
Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!) jim(at)nasby(dot)net
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2003-05-20 15:23:44 Re: Feature suggestions (long)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-05-20 15:03:11 Re: Calling external program from trigger